I think even John Lydon has respect for the Queen nowadays. [1]

[1] https://www.loudersound.com/news/john-lydon-on-sex-pistols-g...

The person. Not the institution.

I have the opposite POV

Be very careful what you wish for. As a French, living under the rule of an elected monarch who changes often, but doesn't answer to anyone during their reign, there is something extraordinary to see the British PM bow to the Queen, and do that (I think?) every week.

At the same time, if the monarch (in a system like that of Britain) actually started using and abusing their theoretical powers, they'd quickly have the whole of the country turn against them. And they have a lot to lose if that happens!

In a presidential system, the President is both the theoretical and actual head of state. They're already in the top spot, and the only thing preventing them from staying there is convention or laws which are subject to change, and enforcement of which is largely under the President's control.

A more ceremonial President might work as well, but the thing is, an elected head of state has less to lose by abusing his powers, and far more to lose by properly following convention and thus stepping down.

https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-s... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/05/09/could-army-c...

But don't worry, as long as people live in a fantasy world where they believe they are just ceremonial figureheads and a benign presence, their position at the top will never be challenged. And at any moment when it does, peoples emotions/grief will be exploited to maintain the institutions by using north korea style propaganda campaigns and security operations:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/03/security-ope...

Between the two...could you really picture Queen Elizabeth attempting to seize total control of the state--much less accomplishing it? Or the monarchs of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Japan?

I can picture a President attempting to seize power in a Republican system. In fact I can point to several specific examples from the past few decades, successful or otherwise.

I'm definitely not saying constitutional monarchy is the perfect system, at all. I'm just saying that after spending most of my life with the assumption that monarchies were just a quaint anachronism left over from days gone by, a sort of political appendix...I've started to notice that they seem to have interesting properties and robustness that other systems might lack. It's possible that the monarchy serves a useful purpose after all (actually...much like the appendix).

The PM bows to the Queen, but that doesn't mean they have to listen to the people more than they do in France, no?

Doesn't the French Prime Minister answer to the President? How is that worse than having a monarch? Are they often from the same party, thus rendering this answering to the president less powerful? (I know the current PM and President are, not sure if that's the common case.)

My impression is that just by being less involved in politics, and generally (not 100%) staying away of corruption and other sorts of scandals (unlike others, looking at you Juan Carlos I) for a few decades, the figure of the Queen can be less jarring or seems more trustworthy than a President usually would.

To be honest, I live in a monarchy, and if I could choose we'd transition to a republic... but I've never felt like it would make a huge difference in the quality of our government or our electoral politics, so I just don't really care.

In theory, no, French PM answers only to Parliament. Only Parliament can dismiss them, not the President.

In practice, and in normal times, this isn't true at all. When the President tells the PM that their time is up, they immediately resign. (One tried to resist in the 70s and was immediately voted out by Parliament.) This makes the French PM effectively powerless. They simply implement the will of the President. The equivalent to the British PM is the French President, not the French PM.

Now there are non normal times where Parliament and the President are on opposite sides. When that happens (1986-1988; 1993-1995; 1997-2002), the PM is effectively in charge of most things, but even in those cases the President still has more powers than an typical constitutional monarch.

But my point wasn't about power but about humility. I think it's good and desirable that the ruler has to bow to someone else, and that that person, in turn, has no power whatsoever.

The queen can still secretly prevent legislation from ever being heard in parliament, so...

The point is that a president is a) elected and b) works openly.

I am not well versed about republic vs. monarchy apart from my limited experience, which might be more than many people, but not as valuable as someone that have studied that and can pitch in. Coming from BR, have lived in AU, NZ, and UK, and traveled a lot, I would take monarchy over a republic any day, extrapolating on that, and just looking at the current state of affairs of republic countries vs the ones coming from monarchy, which ones look in a better state, and makes you want to move to, live in and raise your family?

And mad props to UK for keeping --relatively to others-- really well so far.

Thank you and Rest in Peace.

Widespread unemployment, hunger, life expectancies in decline, 1,000 people are dying a month from the botched "response" to covid. Hundreds of thousands in early graves due to same covid response, and before that already over a hundred thousand in early graves as a result of austerity. The political system seems to have completely collapsed and be unable to respond to crises or meet even the most basic survival needs of its population.

I wouldn't lay this on the feet of the monarchy, cos the elected officials seem to be the main cause of it.

But which republics are you looking at? Because I live in one, and I can't imagine moving back to the UK any time soon. Again, I don't think that's because it's a republic, it just happens to have a basically functioning political an economic system that hasn't (yet) failed.

Metric is where "I" would raise my family, and based on all other western options, monarchies would come first; Brasilians idolises US, I can tell you because I was one of them, but them once you grow up and have a little more exposure to the world and different cultures, the current state it encounters itself it would be one of the last places I would live, because of its recurrent issues, mainly gun control, healthcare, I would also included woman's health birth choices under healthcare, those being the top ones, are a sad joke.

Of course everything depends on which stage one is at life, at the moment this is what I think with a young family, maybe if I was single just leaving Brasil, I would have fell in love with it, but that is not my experience. * At the moment I am fortunate enough to work from NZ with an US salary, and maybe when I am older I might retire on a Spanish villa, who knows, but US is not what it used to be.

> ...1,000 people are dying a month from the botched "response" to covid...

How many republics appear before the first monarch country in this[1] list? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...

> I wouldn't lay this on the feet of the monarchy, cos the elected officials seem to be the main cause of it. Me neither, but it is hard not to conclude that the further away a country have been "independent" the worse it is.

* I have been on some business trips to US. PS: Other countries I would consider would be AU, NZ, UK, CA and Nordics, also I could not care less who is running what, as long as my family is safe and I have peace of mind.

The paradox of the UK is that it has a lot of wealth, many institutions and industries which still function and have not yet collapsed. But the political system itself has completely collapsed, and the economy is faltering badly.

The US is in a similar situation. But, of course, still leading the world in many regards.

Also the royal family pays taxes and lease lots of stuff to the government at no cost.

Not to mention, legoland UK brings in a lot of tourists, but we don't have an unelected lego man as the head of state, secretly vetoing laws or orchestrating coups.

Look at the HDI: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/in...

Look at the top ten countries. How many are a constitutional monarchy? Which of them would you rather live in? :-)

There’s no discernible difference on this count between Finland and its Nordic peers that are constitutional monarchies.

https://govdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/hd8f5d509?indica...

I fail to see how making Finland more stable would improve anything, or that adding a monarch would achieve this goal.

Royalism sounds like the hunt for a silver bullet that would fix complex problems and institutions in a society. I don't think there is any evidence quasi-religion by itself improves institutions.

Yet, likewise to me the Queen always earned the respect shown her. Colouring the establishment by the actions of some is just too black and white thinking for me.

  >the Sex Pistols GSTQ is a great song (also Anti-Nowhere Leagues 's "So F*king What!"..

In the 90s (the only era I can remember) things were quite different too: there was the whole hubub about Camilla who was (IMO unfairly) extensively vilified in the media, had private telephone conversations with Charles were leaked. I'm not sure that would happen today; or if it did, it would get considerably less attention. Then there was the whole bruhaha about Andrew and Fergie, and let's not even start about Diana.

Maybe today Kim Kardashian or whatnot have taken the place for the "gossip inclined". Or maybe I just don't pay as much attention to these things as I did back in the day. But it seems like reporting is completely different.

As for punk: that's basically intended to offend innit? I'm not sure if you can really tell the general mood of the country from punk.

But you're right that these have had less of an effect on the royal family itself and especially QEII

One clear advantage of monarchs that I can see, are that they have an incentive to grow and expand their tax base. That typically means long-term planning (but doesn't ensure it, which is a disadvantage the UK parliamentary system seems to mitigate).

Hereditary absolute monarchy is the same thing, but for selecting heads of state. Who's in charge? The guy with the biggest army. What powers does he have? All of them. Who succeeds him when he dies? His firstborn. It's dead simple to implement, which made it an attractive solution in times before any semblance of mass communication. But in practice it means the quality of your head of state is totally detached from their actual talent at serving as head of state: the first guy in line was just good at leading an army, and the rest of his descendants are just randos who won the birth lottery. It's not a good solution unless you're willing to make loads of sacrifices in order to have the simplest system possible.

(And yes, of course, the UK is not currently an absolute monarchy, but you appeared to be asking in a general sense.)

Sure, now that the top position is entirely symbolic in the vast majority of monarchies, nobody fights over it. But the if the UK Monarch was in any sense "in charge" of anything, we'd surely see the US propping up Harry and Meghan as the true legitimate heirs and we might even let them borrow a couple carriers to "persuade" Parliament of the fact. Or whatever.

They are given a lot of money.

They can (and regularly do) veto legislation if it would harm their (vast) business empire.

They are not elected.

The burden of proof is on you to say why this is a good institution.

I think there is something to be said for, lack of a better word, the continuity of history. 70 years with the same monarch. A system of monarchy, for over a 1000 years.

It is a symbolic role, but symbols are powerful.

Arsenic-laced baby-food would be tolerated, if not vaguely enjoyed, if it received that kind of positive coverage.

Mainstream UK press are regularly making North-Korea style calls for people who personally dislike the royals to be excluded from the media, eve when they are making even-handed reportage about them, just on the off-chance that their subconscious biases might seep through in to their work (or something? lol): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10267447/Amol-Rajan...

Edit: to indicate irony..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

Right at the bottom of the article there is a quote: “Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect.”

The journalist never provides any evidence to the contrary.

Also, the government has to request it. Another problem the UK has is: massively corrupt governments.

The law got signed in to effect anyway. The "trick" was that parliament can sign laws in to effect if the king is incapacitated. They declared him incapacitated, signed the law, and declared him "capable" again the next day. Whether that was truly legal and in accordance to the letter of the law was a matter of some debate (in my reading of the text, it's not), but I expect things will go in a similar fashion for the British monarchy if Charles really tries to use his "hard power" (rather than "soft power"/influence) in any way.

> Charles could disband parliament tomorrow

Elizabeth had some amount of real world power perhaps via the potential threat of this.

It’s completely different.

The Congress does not answer to the president. It is an independent institution. It does not convene and dissolve by presidential request.

Executive orders can be over-ruled by either of the other two branches of government

Veto power can be over-ruled by the congress.

Until recently, presidents needed congressional approval to make war. Now we skip that part and just don't call it a war.

And yet Article 2 Section 3 exists. Constitutional convention copy machine go Brrr. However I did exaggerate slightly for satirical effect. Maybe I should have just said "some alterations".

Support for the Iraq War at the time of invasion was either close to or a majority.

Does Donald Trump agree?

I would wager that neither man feels particularly accountable to the unwashed masses that both of them openly disdained.

Edit: Does George Bush agree?

You can be assured that Royal Family Inc will fight tooth and nail to keep their privileges intact.

I don't care about monarchism or anti-monarchism, nor would I ever take a position about anything like that in a moderation comment. The moderation comments are always about the same thing—avoiding tedious repetition (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32771818). The irony is how tediously repetitive they are!